GRAHHHHH

Read for info ^^

hiya! im leilani and im just gonna post wee diatribes or thoughts w or w/o tags

like venting but more generalised, brain dumps?

im queer and use xe/it/she pronouns (i am a woman :3)

feel free to send me asks, but i’m js gonna do what i want lols

music has no rules, dare i say it’s not a science so don’t approach it as one but even then science isn’t rule based, science is very maluable, physics has changed so much over centuries, as has music

music has different styles, purposes, genres

and all of these have conventions, intents and affects (or Der Affekt [pl. Die Affekte] {faux middle english afecte, afecten}]

there are no rules, some styles may implicate rules, or state some

but that makes u either following the rules of a style

or in other terms, being more idiomatic to a style, more conventional, following the conventions of a style

it comes up mostly in the teaching of common practice period music theory [europe 17-20th century art music / classical music {choose ur poison, i’m indifferent}]

they bring up examples of "rule-breaking", yet they show only examples of where the broken rule (parallel fifths) either don’t apply to the given affect or intention (take german 6 resolving without and intermittent 6/4 chord, not uncommon in classical era; often in chordal or homophonic textures, doesn’t sound odd ass parallel fifths are a contrapuntal aversion (dare i say an adversion [goes against core principal of <species> counterpoint—that being independent melodies]), not as important in non polyphonic contexts)

and to me this shows a lack of understanding of why we teach and create theory

or what it is on a whole, it isn’t a how to be a musical person, how to be the best musician, yet when we are working, breaking of these rules are seen as idiotic or unmusical